Prosecutors say Diddy used power to abuse women in closing remarks of trial
United States prosecutors argued that Sean 'Diddy' Combs used his wealth and influence to evade accountability for violently abusing women in closing arguments in the entertainment mogul's trial.
Prosecutors told the jury on Thursday that Combs, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, oversaw a vast criminal conspiracy.
'The defendant used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted,' prosecutor Christy Slavik told jurors in her address. 'He thought that his fame, wealth and power put him above the law.'
The trial of the billionaire former rapper, a central figure in the rise of hip-hop in US popular culture, has included harrowing testimony from women who described an atmosphere of cruelty, exploitation, and intimidation.
Over six weeks of testimony, prosecutors also said that Combs pushed people to participate in drug-fuelled sex parties known as 'freak offs', with footage of people engaged in sex acts then used as leverage by Combs.
Slavik said that Combs 'again and again forced, threatened and manipulated' singer and former girlfriend Casandra 'Cassie' Ventura to have sex with escorts for his own entertainment and used a 'small army of employees' from his entertainment empire to cover up abuses and intimidate anyone who tried to push back.
Combs sat with his head down while Slavik made her remarks before the jury, wearing a light-coloured sweater and khaki trousers. His lawyers have argued that while Combs has a violent temperament and has committed violent acts against romantic partners, prosecutors have misrepresented a sexually unorthodox lifestyle as evidence of crimes such as racketeering and trafficking.
Judge Arun Subramanian told the jury that they would hear final statements from the defence on Friday, with the prosecution given a chance to offer a rebuttal before jurors are instructed on their responsibilities and sent to begin deliberation.
The jury is expected to begin deliberations on Friday or Monday, and Combs faces a minimum of 15 years in prison if he is convicted on all counts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
US funeral home owner who stashed 191 bodies sentenced to 20 years
A judge in the US state of Colorado has handed a funeral home owner, who stashed 191 dead bodies on his premises, a 20-year prison sentence for cheating customers and defrauding the federal government. Federal prosecutors had sought a 15-year sentence for Jon Hallford, the owner of Return to Nature Funeral Home in Colorado, where he and his wife, Carie Hallford, stored bodies between 2019 and 2023 and sent families fake ashes. At Friday's hearing, US District Judge Nina Wang said the circumstances and scale of John Hallford's crimes, as well as the emotional damage to families he inflicted, warranted a longer sentence. 'This is not an ordinary fraud case,' Judge Wang said. Investigators were called to the dilapidated, insect-infested building in the small town of Penrose, about 160 kilometres (100 miles) south of Denver, in 2023 after reports of an 'abhorrent smell' coming from the property. At trial, investigators described finding the bodies stacked on top of each other and being unable to move into some rooms because they were piled so high with human remains. FBI agents also had to put boards down so they could walk around the crime scene and above the bodily fluid that had pooled on the ground. The morbid discovery by investigators in 2023 revealed for the first time to many families that the ashes they had received from Return to Nature were fake. Court documents showed Hallford had sent families urns filled with dry concrete mix, and in two cases, the wrong body had been buried. In separate charges, Jon Hallford has pleaded guilty to 191 counts of corpse abuse in state court. He is scheduled to be sentenced for those charges in August. Carie Hallford is scheduled to go to trial in the federal case in September. That same month, she will attend her next hearing in the state case, in which she's also charged with 191 counts of corpse abuse. COVID-19 fraud At Friday's hearing, Jon Hallford was also jailed for defrauding the US federal government out of nearly $900,000 in emergency financial assistance provided to Americans dealing with the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a news statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Colorado said the Hallfords had 'defrauded the Small Business Administration through fraudulent COVID-19 loan applications'. Federal prosecutors said the Hallfords syphoned the money and spent it, along with customers' payments, on SUVs worth more than $120,000, along with $31,000 in cryptocurrency, and luxury items from stores like Gucci and Tiffany & Co. In addition to his jail sentence, Jon Hallford was also 'ordered to pay $1,070,413.74 in restitution for a conspiracy to commit wire fraud', according to the District of Colorado. The District of Colorado statement said the Hallfords had 'collected more than $130,000 from grieving families for funeral services that were never provided'. 'Instead of ensuring proper disposition of the remains, Hallford allowed bodies to accumulate in various states of decay and decomposition inside the funeral home's facility,' it said. According to an order suspending the home's registration as a funeral establishment, Jon Hallford had claimed when the bodies were discovered 'that he practises taxidermy' at the property. In court before the sentencing, Jon Hallford told the judge that he opened Return to Nature to make a positive impact on people's lives, but 'then everything got completely out of control'. 'I am so deeply sorry for my actions,' he said. 'I still hate myself for what I've done.'
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Why the Trump administration is targeting immigration courts for arrests
Why the Trump administration is targeting immigration courts for arrests A man is detained by federal immigration officers at a US immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A man is detained by federal immigration officers at a US immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] Houston, Texas – Oscar Gato Sanchez had gotten dressed up for his day in immigration court. The 25-year-old wore a red button-down, black slacks and dress shoes, his dark hair trimmed short with the aim of leaving a good impression. It was a Monday afternoon in June, and Gato Sanchez, a Cuban immigrant, had come to present himself before a United States immigration judge. As he sat inside the Texas courtroom, he had no reason to doubt that the court would eventually hear his case. Gato Sanchez was seeking asylum on the basis that his life would be in danger if he returned to Cuba. There, human rights groups have accused the government of repression and torture, and Gato Sanchez feared he would face repercussions for having attended recent antigovernment protests on the island. While he waited to go before the judge, his aunt, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, sat in the room outside. She was anxious. The clock seemed to move more slowly than usual. 'What is taking so long?' his aunt, a Houston resident, asked a friend next to her. But the two women were not the only ones waiting outside the courtroom. Near the elevators, four men sat staring at their phones, dressed in ordinary street clothes. Around 3:15pm, Gato Sanchez emerged from the courtroom with a folder of documents in his hands. As soon as he did, the four men surrounded him. It was as if they already knew Gato Sanchez's case had been dismissed. They were federal agents, and they were in the courthouse to take Gato Sanchez into custody as soon as his case was thrown out. His aunt was frantic. She tried to ask for information. But the only details the men would give her was that her nephew would be sent to Conroe, Texas, the site of the largest detention centre in the Houston area. The men did not even tell her whether they were from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or another federal law enforcement agency. 'Why, God, did they do this?' His aunt screamed, overcome with emotion. As the agents took Gato Sanchez away, his aunt's friend yelled out to him. 'You're not a bad person,' she said through tears. Gato Sanchez is one of the hundreds of people recently detained immediately after leaving their immigration hearings. Advocates fear the courthouse arrests not only violate the right to due process but also discourage immigrants from pursuing legal means to stay in the US. 'These are people that are doing the right thing,' said Cesar Espinosa, the executive director of Houston immigrant rights nonprofit FIEL. 'You're between a rock and a hard place. If you don't show up, they're going to come get you. If you do show up, they're going to come get you, which is not due process.' Federal officers lead a migrant man to an elevator in a immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] Federal officers lead a migrant man to an elevator in a immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] The question of whether immigration raids should take place within courthouses has gained new urgency since the return of President Donald Trump in January. In the early months of his second term, Trump has followed through on his pledge to pursue a campaign of mass deportation. Over the last month alone, his administration has stepped up its quota for immigration arrests, raising the bar from 1,000 to 3,000 per day. Part of the strategy for reaching that goal is to leverage the court system and detain immigrants after their scheduled hearings. This has led to some high-profile clashes. In April, for instance, a Wisconsin judge was arrested and charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for attempting to help an immigrant evade the federal agents waiting outside her courtroom. John Gihon, the vice chair of the ICE liaison committee at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said his own clients are now scared to go to immigration court as a result of the arrests. 'It's creating a gigantic chilling effect on everybody going to immigration court. I see that every day, constantly now,' said Gihon, who previously worked as a lawyer for ICE. Immigration arrests at courthouses have long been a controversial practice. In 2011, ICE issued a memorandum identifying "sensitive locations" where arrests should be avoided, including churches and schools. Courthouses were not among them. But that changed in 2021, under former President Joe Biden. ICE issued new guidance discouraging immigration agents from conducting civil arrests in courthouses, just as they would in "sensitive" places. The day Trump began his second term, however, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded all the guidelines for "sensitive" areas. "The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense," the department said in its statement. A man is placed in handcuffs by law enforcement officers at a New York City immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A man is placed in handcuffs by law enforcement officers at a New York City immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] But advocates say the Trump administration has gone a step further, using the immigration system itself to facilitate courthouse arrests and swift deportations. The immigration court system in the US is separate from the judicial branch of government. Rather, it is run by the Department of Justice, directly under the president's authority. That allows the president to shape immigration policy and give directives to the courts. But critics accuse the Trump administration of manipulating the system to prioritise his deportation push over the right of immigrants to receive a fair hearing. Earlier this month, NBC News broke the story that the Trump administration had issued a memo calling on immigration judges to quickly dismiss the cases on their dockets. In the past, the Department of Homeland Security could request a case be dismissed, but immigrants would still have about 10 days to respond before the judge rendered a decision. But in the new memo, the Trump administration called on immigration judges to grant dismissals on the very same day they were requested. That meant immigrants would lose their protections against deportation immediately. Individuals who have been in the country for less than two years are often eligible for expedited removal from the country, meaning they have little chance of appealing their deportation. And advocates say ICE agents are now stationed right outside the courtrooms, waiting to sweep up the immigrants whose cases were dismissed. Bianca Santorini, a Houston-based lawyer who took Gato Sanchez's case pro bono after his courthouse detention, said that ICE is taking advantage of the immigration system 'to trick people to come to court". 'I'm not asking that every case is won. What I'm asking is that they give people their day in court,' Santorini said. 'They are taking that away from people unjustly.' ICE declined to confirm the number of agents at immigration courts in recent weeks but said that its enforcement at courthouses 'is wholly consistent" with its longstanding practices. 'ICE officers and agents seek to conduct enforcement actions at an alternate location when practicable," a spokesperson told Al Jazeera. "However, when no other location is feasible or when the alternate location increases the risk to public safety or the safety of our officers, ICE will seek to effectuate the arrest in the location that is least likely to endanger anyone's safety." A federal immigration officer patrols the hallway at a Manhattan immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A federal immigration officer patrols the hallway at a Manhattan immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A dismissal in immigration court, however, does not mean an immigrant's rights are exhausted. They can still seek alternative pathways to legal status by appealing their case or applying to a government programme like Temporary Protected Status. Gihon, the Florida-based immigration lawyer, explained that immigrants like Gato Sanchez will have a chance to seek asylum again if they choose. But being detained often disincentivises them from continuing their cases. That is part of the Trump administration's strategy, according to Gihon. 'The whole point is to detain as many people as possible because it's much less likely that they're going to be successful in winning their cases and less likely that they're going to fight,' Gihon said. 'They're just going to accept deportation.' Advocacy groups like FIEL are now advising immigrants not to come to court without legal representation, if possible. If a lawyer is not available, FIEL has circulated guidance about what to say to oppose a dismissal and keep a case open. "Your honour, I reserve the right to appeal," one line reads. Another suggests explaining, "Your honour, before dismissing my case, I respectfully ask you to hear my side of the story. I am afraid to return to my country because I will face harm, danger or death." In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security justified its policies by blaming the Biden administration for allowing unfettered immigration into the country. 'ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been,' a spokesperson said. Narel Lopez comforts her daughters on June 25 after her husband and a son were detained at an immigration court in San Antonio, Texas [Eric Gay/AP Photo] Narel Lopez comforts her daughters on June 25 after her husband and a son were detained at an immigration court in San Antonio, Texas [Eric Gay/AP Photo] Despite the controversy, authorities have continued to target immigration hearings for arrests. The day after Gato Sanchez was arrested, immigration agents were once again in the waiting room of the Houston immigration court. Some wore ski masks and glasses. One approached a Venezuelan immigrant named Daniel, who had shown up to court alone. The agent explained that they would be taking him into ICE custody. 'Understand?' the agent asked. 'Don't understand,' Daniel answered, his grasp of English still minimal. After a lawyer spoke to Daniel to take his information, immigration agents took him into the lift. Moments later, another Venezuelan man and a Mexican man exited the courtroom with Santorini, their lawyer. The three of them were standing by the lift when a plain-clothed agent approached. 'We have a warrant,' he told Santorini. She questioned why ICE would detain one of the men again if he had already been released on a $7,500 bond. 'Where is the warrant?' she asked. 'I don't have it,' the immigration agent responded. He declined to identify which agency he worked with. Santorini said she and her clients would wait until he could produce a warrant. They took a seat in the waiting room. After a few minutes, another man, who identified as an ICE agent, returned with an administrative warrant dated for that day. 'Who are you scared of?' one of Santorini's clients asked in Spanish as he was handcuffed. 'We're just here to work.' As the men were ushered into the lift, the ICE agent assured Santorini that her clients would still have the chance to seek asylum if they feared returning to their country. But Santorini scoffed at the comment and held back tears, knowing that her clients would have to repeat a legal process they had already begun, this time behind bars. 'All we want is that they give us our right to a day in court,' Santorini said. 'Arresting someone at court is not the correct thing to do here in the US.'
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Political violence is quintessentially American
Violence begets violence, so many religions say. Americans should know. After all, the United States – a nation founded on Indigenous genocide, African enslavement and open rebellion against an imperial power to protect its wealthiest citizens – cannot help but be violent. What's more, violence in the US is political, and the violence the country has carried out overseas over the generations has always been connected to its imperialist ambitions and racism. From the US bombing of Iran's nuclear sites on June 21 to the everyday violence in rhetoric and reality within the US, the likes of President Donald Trump continue to stoke the violent impulses of a violence‑prone nation. The US news cycle serves as continual confirmation. In June alone, there have been several high‑profile shootings and murders. On June 14, Vance Boelter, a white male vigilante, shot and killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, after critically wounding State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. That same day, at a No Kings mass protest in Salt Lake City, Utah, peacekeepers with the 50501 Movement accidentally shot and killed Samoan fashion designer Arthur Folasa Ah Loo while attempting to take down Arturo Gamboa, who was allegedly armed with an AR‑15. On June 1, the start of Pride Month, Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez allegedly shot and murdered gay Indigenous actor Jonathan Joss in San Antonio, Texas. On June 12, Secret Service agents forcibly detained and handcuffed US Senator Alex Padilla during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference in Los Angeles. Mass shootings, white vigilante violence, police brutality, and domestic terrorism are all normal occurrences in the United States – and all are political. Yet US leaders still react with hollow platitudes that reveal an elitist and narcissistic detachment from the nation's violent history. 'Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God bless the great people of Minnesota…' said Governor Tim Walz after Boelter's June 14 shootings. On X, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden wrote: 'Political violence has no place in America. I fully condemn this attack…' Despite these weak condemnations, the US often tolerates – and sometimes celebrates – political violence. Van Orden also tweeted, 'With one horrible governor that appoints political assassins to boards. Good job, stupid,' in response to Walz's message. Senator Mike Lee referred to the incident as 'Nightmare on Waltz Street' before deleting the post. Political violence in the US is commonplace. President Trump has long fostered it – such as during a presidential debate in Philadelphia, when he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants 'eat their neighbours' pets'. This led to weeks of threats against the roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. On June 9, Trump posted on Truth Social: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT… harder than they have ever been hit before.' That led to a federally-sanctioned wave of violence against protesters in Los Angeles attempting to end Trump's immigration crackdowns, including Trump's takeover and deployment of California's National Guard in the nation's second-largest city. But it's not just that Trump may have a lust for political violence and is stoking such violence. The US has always been a powder keg for violence, a nation-state that cannot help itself. Political violence against elected officials in the US is too extensive to list fully. Assassins murdered Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, William McKinley, and John F Kennedy. In 1804, Vice‑President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Populist candidate Huey Long was assassinated in 1935; Robert F Kennedy in 1968; Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in 2011. Many assassins and vigilantes have targeted those fighting for social justice: Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, Marsha P. Johnson, and civil‑rights activists like Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Viola Liuzzo, and Fred Hampton. Jonathan Joss and Arthur Folasa Ah Loo are more recent examples of marginalised people struck down in a white‑supremacist society. The most chilling truth of all is that, because of the violent nature of the US, there is no end in sight – domestically or overseas. The recent US bomb mission over Iran is merely the latest unprovoked preemptive attack the superpower has conducted on another nation. Trump's unilateral use of military force was done, presumably, in support of Israel's attacks on Iran, allegedly because of the threat Iran poses if it ever arms itself with nuclear weapons. But these are mere excuses that could also be violations of international law. It wouldn't be the first time the US has sought to start a war based on questionable intelligence or reasons, however. The most recent example, of course, is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a part of George W Bush's 'preemptive war' doctrine, attacking Iraq because they supposedly had a stockpile of WMDs that they could use against the US in the future. There was never any evidence of any stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. As many as 2.4 million Iraqis have died from the resulting violence, statelessness, and civil war that the initial 2003 US invasion created. It has not gone unnoticed that the US mostly bombs and invades nation-states with majority people of colour and non-Christian populations. Malcolm X said it best, a week after Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F Kennedy in 1963: 'Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad.' Given that Americans consume nine billion chickens a year, that is a huge amount of retribution to consider for the nation's history of violence. Short of repealing the Second Amendment's right-to-bear-guns clause in the US Constitution and a real commitment towards eliminating the threat of white male supremacist terrorism, this violence will continue unabated, with repercussions that will include terrorism and revenge, domestically and internationally. A country with a history of violence, elitism, and narcissism like the US – and an individual like Trump – cannot divorce themselves from their own violent DNA, a violence that could one day consume this nation-state. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
